| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
03 Aug 2005 08:05:05 AM |
| Object: |
Earth: The Privileged Planet |
The Privileged Planet: A review of a review
I have seen many rants against ID (Intelligent Design), but I cannot
recall one as comprehensively bad and unthinking as William H
Jefferys's review of The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and
Jay W. Richards, posted on the misleadingly named National Center for
Science Education (NCSE).
The NCSE is not broad, as its name would suggest, but narrow: keep any
discussion of Biological Intelligent Design outside the science
classroom. You would think that on the "National Center for Science
Education" you could find, for example, discussions on new techniques
for teaching high school physics. You can't. This site and this
organization have little to do with science education beyond the
evolution v. biological ID debate.
If look at the NCSE's about page, you will find something like a
mission statement (if there is an actual Mission Statement page, I
couldn't find it.) There you would be excused for concluding, if the
NCSE were aptly named, that the only science known to man is evolution.
There is no mention of physics or chemistry.
So the NCSE is an organization which, in spite of its name, is devoted
to just one issue. It is a Potemkin "Center for Science Education."
I find it odd, then, that they even posted a review of The Privileged
Planet, which says nothing at all of substance regarding evolution. In
their book Gonzalez and Richards start with the empirical (and
undisputed) fact that, at least insofar as mainstream cosmology,
astrophysics, and nuclear chemistry are concerned, we exist in a
fine-tuned universe. One can take this as real fine-tuning and become a
cosmological IDer, or one can take it as "apparent" fine-tuning and
look for scientific explanations, but unless you want to stick your
head in the sand you cannot deny that it is there.
Here is another way to put it. Let's break up the fact that we are here
into five scientific questions:
How is it that there is something rather than nothing?
Given that there is something, how is it that the something includes
galaxies, stars and planets?
Given that there are planets, how is it that one or more of them can
support complex life?
Given that a planet can support complex life, how is it that life
actually began?
Given that life actually began, how is it that it evolved into complex,
self-aware creatures?
Now if you debate with evolutionists, they demand that the argument
stays on point 5. If you try to move it back one step to point 4,
abiogenesis, they will cry foul. That's not evolution's problem, they
will say, our domain strictly begins after the onset of life, and
however it happened is not relevant and fine with us (although we won't
allow it was by divine fiat.)
Fair enough. By why then do they care about The Privileged Planet,
which is operating in the domain of points 2-3?
Could it be that the NCSE's agenda goes beyond what it claims? That
they are threatened not just by criticism of evolution but by any
hypotheses that shines favorably on the notion of a Creator? I see no
other explanation. Note that this radical notion is quite new: it is a
trivial exercise to find the most prominent scientists waxing
philosophical on the obvious connection between the beauty and elegance
of science and a divinely rational Creator. The NCSE, it appears, would
censure Newton, Copernicus, Maxwell, Einstein, etc.
Let me try to get back on track.
Gonzalez and Richards extend the fine-tuning argument in a fascinating
way: they argue a connection between habitability and
observability-not only is the earth extremely lucky in its ability to
support life, it is also a privileged laboratory from which to do
science, especially cosmology and related fields.
Just as an example:
Habitability: for a planet to be habitable, it needs to be in a low
(but not too low) stellar-density neighborhood so that (among other
things) the radiation is not too intense.
Observability: That is also the kind of environment that permits us to
see outside our own galaxy and back in time to the early universe.
On the one hand, this is a profoundly significant religious question.
Has the Creator both prepared the earth for life and also prepared it
so that we could do science? The implication is that religion and
science should be friends, not enemies.
However, the conjecture of The Privileged Planet is not a religious one
but a scientific one. In fact, in a subtle way, it is not at all
helpful to ID. Cosmological ID diehards (like myself) would like to
argue this: God made the universe and, as an added blessing, He made it
so we could study the universe too. The Privileged Planet argues, in
effect, that the blessing of observability is not independent.
Habitability and observability are highly and scientifically
correlated. My religious side would be happier if Gonzalez and Richards
are wrong, and habitability and observability counted as two miracles
instead of just one.
Sorry for more rabbit trails. This time I'm serious. Let's get to the
review.
Jefferys opens his review this way:
The Privileged Planet is based upon the odd notion that the more
unsuitable our universe is for producing intelligent life, the more
likely it is that our universe was "designed" to produce intelligent
life by a "designer" of indeterminate nature; put another way,
supposedly the less likely it is that there could be a planet in our
universe that supports intelligent life, then the more likely it is
that the universe was "designed" to produce a particular intelligent
life form -- us -- that can and will investigate the nature of the
universe.
From the get-go we see that Jefferys's review will be
anti-intellectual. He will not refute The Privileged Planet, he will
simply declare that it is odd and wrong.
Examine what he declares as odd: "the more unsuitable our universe is
for producing intelligent life, the more likely it is that our universe
was 'designed' to produce intelligent life by a 'designer' of
indeterminate nature."
The statement, far from odd, is self-evident. In fact, it is just
Sagan's argument in reverse. Sagan argued that the universe surely
produced billions of earths, and this is then taken as evidence that
there is no designer. One doubts that Jefferys finds that argument odd.
The Cosmological ID argument is just stating that Sagan and his
followers cannot have both ways. Granted, if earth-like planets are
common, then there is no evidence for a designer. Therefore if
earthlike planets are exceedingly rare, then it is fair game to suggest
that such evidence does support design.
Not to beat a dead horse, but The Privileged Planet does not argue
fine-tuning per se. It argues than habitability also leads to
observability.
Jefferys continues his anti-intellectual rant with a common
anti-intellectual tactic: an accusation (reach in the bag, pull one
out) of a logical fallacy. He claims that Gonzalez and Richards create
a false dichotomy. He doesn't bother with the inconvenience of
referencing where this error is committed; he just makes an
unsubstantiated assertion. I have read The Privileged Planet and I have
watched the video, as far as I recall design is presented as a
potential, even the best explanation, but never as the only possible
alternative to existing theories. It seems that Jefferys is befuddled;
he confuses a true dichotomy, that the universe was either designed or
it wasn't designed, with a false one.
Jefferys goes on to make more bizarre and scientifically inaccurate
statements. For example, in criticizing ID, he writes:
This is because a basic rule of inference is that one has to compare
the likelihood of observing evidence E under all relevant hypotheses
H1, H2, ..., Hn. Then the hypothesis that has the greatest likelihood
is the one best supported by the evidence
This is nonsense. Does he hold mainstream cosmology to this standard?
Does he know of a calculation that computes the likelihood of an
earthlike planet given the big bang? I'll remind him that Sagan would
have loved such an argument, for all he had at his disposal was an
argument from vast numbers.
Then we have this gem from Jefferys:
What if we had observed that the universe was actually quite conducive
to the existence of intelligent, inquisitive life? Would Gonzalez and
Richards then conclude that the probability of observing such a
universe, given that it was designed by an "intelligent designer", was
small? I hardly think so.
This is too sloppy of a statement to respond to in a precise way. Is
his hypothetical premise that the universe is not fine-tuned and life
friendly? Or is it still fine tuned, but not vastly hostile to life?
Without stating what he means, all he can do is theorize how Gonzalez
and Richards would respond to his ill-defined toy universe.
Not content with merely putting words in their mouths, Jefferys goes on
to argue as if they actually said (what he speculated they would say)
and then demonstrates how their imagined response to his pretend
universe damns their argument:
But there's the rub. They [Gonzalez and Richards] can't have it both
ways. An elementary rule of inference is that if evidence E supports
hypothesis H, then observing that E is false would undermine H. In
other words, if observing that the universe is fecund were to support
the hypothesis that the universe is "designed", then observing that it
is not fecund would necessarily support the hypothesis that it was not
"designed" and would undermine the design argument.
He cannot wait for them to slip-up and fall into his clever trap, he
teleports them into its clutches and then slaps himself on the back.
Logical fallacy Mr. Jefferys? Pot-kettle-black.
Actually, it is from evolutionists, not IDers, that I most often
encounter "anything-goes" imprecision. If there is water on Mars will
there be life? If there is life, will it be complex? Will there be life
on Titan? Will it be simple? Complex? Evolution makes no
predictions-all permutations of yes, no, and maybe to such questions
are accommodated within its framework.
Jefferys criticizes The Privileged Planet's handling of many worlds
(MWH) and parallel universes, writing:
[they] claim that "we have no evidence to think that other universes
exist," a claim that happens to be false, for several reasons. One
reason is that it is a prediction of the best-supported theory in
cosmology, one that is strongly supported by evidence. And the second
is that under that model, our own existence evidentially supports the
MWH (since under that hypothesis a selection effect is involved: we can
only exist in one of the very small proportion of worlds in which "the
constants are right," so our own existence implies the existence of
these other worlds).
Jefferys is engaged in some Clinton-speak here. It is true that we have
evidence to think (i.e., speculate) that other universes exist.
However, we have no actual evidence that they do. No parallel universe
has ever been detected, period. The fact that some current theories are
consistent with parallel universe does allow one to think about them,
but it is not to be confused with evidence that they exist. Theories
are famous for incorrect predictions upon extension. Maybe Jefferys
believes that highly successful classical electricity and magnetism is
evidence for the fact that electrons will radiate and spiral into the
nucleus (which is what it predicts.) He then goes on to argue that
assuming the multiverse hypothesis is correct, once again
disingenuously implying that actual evidence exists (this "evidence",
permit me to repeat, being that multiple universes is a
prediction-and he conveniently neglects to mention that it is an
untestable prediction) then, surprise surprise, Gonzalez and Richards
are wrong. Woulda-coulda argument, Mr. Jefferys.
Jefferys goes on to discuss how he has "proved" that fine tuning argues
against intelligent design. He argues, in a paper coauthored by Michael
Ikeda that, as far as I know, is only available online and not in a
peer reviewed journal:
It has recently been claimed, most prominently by Dr. Hugh Ross on his
web site that the so-called "fine-tuning" of the constants of physics
supports a supernatural origin of the universe. Specifically, it is
claimed that many of the constants of physics must be within a very
small range of their actual values, or else life could not exist in our
universe. Since it is alleged that this range is very small, and since
our very existence shows that our universe has values of these
constants that would allow life to exist, it is argued that the
probability that our universe arose by chance is so small that we must
seek a supernatural origin of the universe.
In this article we will show that this argument is wrong. Not only is
it wrong, but in fact we will show that the observation that the
universe is "fine-tuned" in this sense can only count against a
supernatural origin of the universe. And we shall furthermore show that
with certain theologies suggested by deities that are both inscrutable
and very powerful, the more "finely-tuned" the universe is, the more a
supernatural origin of the universe is undermined.
That's right: the more fine-tuned the universe is, the less likely that
it was designed. Imagine an infinitely fine-tuned universe: no a priori
theory for the values of the physical constants, yet this pretend
universe would not exist if the values of the electron charge, the
relative strengths of the other fundamental forces, the expansion rate
of the universe, the cosmological constant, Planck's constant, etc.,
differed, not just by one part in 10999 from their known values, but if
they differed at all. This hyper-tuned universe, according to Jefferys,
would be a slam-dunk proof of a naturalistic explanation and the
perfect refutation of ID.
If his argument had any validity, we should expect to find
evolutionists arguing that the universe is fine-tuned and IDers arguing
that it isn't.
The paper that Ikeda and Jefferys wrote is a fine example of this
approach: If I use Bayes's Theorem, my analysis is both clever and
correct. If you are into that sort of thing, here is a refutation of
Ikeda and Jefferys.
Finally (in his conclusion) Jefferys addresses what Gonzalez and
Richards actually wrote about in The Privileged Planet, instead of what
he thinks they think. He does no better here. He writes, concerning the
connection between habitability and observability:
For suppose it were not so [that we lived on a planet like earth, with
a transparent atmosphere and a large moon]; if we existed on another
world very different from the earth, then we would surely be doing
something. We would be doing whatever was possible for us to do under
the circumstances in which we found ourselves.
The thinking that had to take place to construct such a
refutation-why it makes the mind reel. First of all, to refute The
Privileged Planet, Jefferys should make a case that such a planet is
habitable. Venus would be a good place to start (although that would
bias the argument in his favor, for Venus already enjoys a special
location within a special galaxy.) Jefferys seems to be arguing: if
intelligent life exists on Venus, they would be very happy with their
own level of observability. His entire argument: they would surely be
doing something. Well, what they wouldn't be doing is cosmology,
astronomy, astrophysics, planetary science, space-weather, etc.
In summary, Jefferys presents no actual arguments against the
hypothesis presented in The Privileged Planet. In particular, Gonzalez
and Richards present ways to falsify their theory, viz.
To find a distant environment that was hostile to life and yet a better
place than earth for making scientific observations.
Find complex life where they claim you won't find it-say on a gas
giant, or near a x-ray emitting star in the galactic center, or on a
planet without a dark night, etc.
Find complex life on a planet that does not have a large moon (that
produces good solar eclipses.)
Find non-Carbon based life
Jefferys should address these points and make evolution's or
cosmology's prediction for each of them. Does evolution, for example,
predict that we will find non-Carbon based life, or is it silent on the
matter? My guess: doesn't matter, all potentialities are welcomed
there.
All Jefferys offered was bad logic and distortions. In particular, he
implied that there is evidence for multiple universes when, in fact,
there is none. And furthermore, while it is difficult to falsify the
hypothesis of The Privileged Planet, Gonzalez and Richards offer some
suggestions that are, in principle, achievable. The parallel universe
theories are not, even in principle, falsifiable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE: In the comment section, some questions arose regarding the
first example of falsification:
To find a distant environment that was hostile to life and yet a better
place than earth for making scientific observations.
Guillermo Gonzalez has provided this clarification:
It is important to keep in mind what we mean when we say that a planet
is better or worse for scientific discovery than Earth. It is always in
the context of "constrained optimization." We give the examples of the
Moon or Mercury providing better views of the universe due to the lack
of an atmosphere, but that also prevents them from producing rainbows,
producing information rich sedimentary or ice layer deposits,
concentrating ores via interaction of the geological and hydrological
cycles (important for technology), and providing oxygen to allow for
fires and other industrial activities.
One always needs to keep in mind the diverse and competing ways Earth
is optimized for scientific discovery and all the preconditions needed
for doing science.
http://www.helives.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_helives_archive.html#111824626874023024
.
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth: The Privileged Planet |
03 Aug 2005 11:53:05 AM |
|
|
<wordsoftruth114@email.com> wrote in message
news:1123074305.151256.276960@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
The Privileged Planet: A review of a review
(snip)
I find it odd, then, that they even posted a review of The Privileged
Planet, which says nothing at all of substance regarding evolution. In
their book Gonzalez and Richards start with the empirical (and
undisputed) fact that, at least insofar as mainstream cosmology,
astrophysics, and nuclear chemistry are concerned, we exist in a
fine-tuned universe. One can take this as real fine-tuning and become a
cosmological IDer, or one can take it as "apparent" fine-tuning and
look for scientific explanations, but unless you want to stick your
head in the sand you cannot deny that it is there.
(snip)
I don't have to deny it, it's up to you to prove it. By saying the universe
is fine tuned, you are saying the odds of the universe being the way it is
are unlikely. That means you claim to know the odds of the universe being
the way it is. I can only wonder how you arrived at those odds. How many
other universes did you examine to determine that this one is unusual?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gene P." |
|
| Title: Re: Earth: The Privileged Planet |
03 Aug 2005 03:14:23 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Denis Loubet wrote:
[snip]
I don't have to deny it, it's up to you to prove it. By saying the universe
is fine tuned, you are saying the odds of the universe being the way it is
are unlikely. That means you claim to know the odds of the universe being
the way it is. I can only wonder how you arrived at those odds. How many
other universes did you examine to determine that this one is unusual?
[snip]
The whole debate is silly.
You won't have fish on a planet with no water...
You won't have *us* (humans) in a Universe that isn't suited to us.
I deny that the universe is any more favorable than necessary... In fact,
God seems to have gone out of his way to make it rather difficult to
travel to anyplace else that might support our species. (Relativity and
cosmic distances are *so* unfair.)
I rather fancy the idea that God's toolbox includes Quantum
Chromodynamics, Cosmology, Relativity, Chemistry, and all the other
observable elements of the universe. And generally speaking, I think he
follows his own rules and doesn't lie to us.
So yes, Virginia, there were Dinosaurs before people, and the "dust of the
earth" that he made Adam from was a chimplike ape... (That sure might
explain where Cain and Able got spouses...)
Or, if you prefer, the universe is merely mechanical.
I freely admit, that if God follows his own rules, you aren't going to be
able to prove he exists... since his definition and essence will lie
outside the framework and reality of this universe. Hmmm... sounds like a
case for having faith.
Science is about what can be proven to exist.
Religion is about what is unprovable to exist.
Sadly the religious nutjobs of the world insist that the rest of us
beleive as they do, or else.
I teach my kids to have faith. I teach my kids good science (including
Big Bang/Brane Theory and Evolution). The two are not in conflict. One
teaches the mechnics of life and the world. The other teaches how to live
and why the world matters.
(Substitute the credo of your choice, if you insist on denial of God.
"Faith" is what you believe in and the moral system you adhere to.)
Gene P.
Slidell LA
--
Alcore Nilth - The Mad Alchemist of Gevbeck
alcore@uurth.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth: The Privileged Planet |
03 Aug 2005 04:00:28 PM |
|
|
"Gene P." <alcore@uurth.com> said:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Denis Loubet wrote:
[snip]
I don't have to deny it, it's up to you to prove it. By saying the universe
is fine tuned, you are saying the odds of the universe being the way it is
are unlikely. That means you claim to know the odds of the universe being
the way it is. I can only wonder how you arrived at those odds. How many
other universes did you examine to determine that this one is unusual?
[snip]
The whole debate is silly.
You won't have fish on a planet with no water...
You won't have *us* (humans) in a Universe that isn't suited to us.
I deny that the universe is any more favorable than necessary... In fact,
God seems to have gone out of his way to make it rather difficult to
travel to anyplace else that might support our species. (Relativity and
cosmic distances are *so* unfair.)
If it weren't so far, we'd already have Starbucks there.
I rather fancy the idea that God's toolbox includes Quantum
Chromodynamics, Cosmology, Relativity, Chemistry, and all the other
observable elements of the universe. And generally speaking, I think he
follows his own rules and doesn't lie to us.
God is incapable of lying.
<...>
(Substitute the credo of your choice, if you insist on denial of God.
"Faith" is what you believe in and the moral system you adhere to.)
Gene P.
Slidell LA
I remember when Slidell was on the way from Tallahassee to Houston.
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gene P." |
|
| Title: Re: Earth: The Privileged Planet |
03 Aug 2005 04:49:45 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Jim07D5 wrote:
[snip]
I remember when Slidell was on the way from Tallahassee to Houston.
Jim07D5
[snip]
It still is... Or at least, our Mall is.
Gene P.
Slidell LA
--
Alcore Nilth - The Mad Alchemist of Gevbeck
alcore@uurth.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth: The Privileged Planet |
03 Aug 2005 05:04:12 PM |
|
|
"Gene P." <alcore@uurth.com> said:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Jim07D5 wrote:
[snip]
I remember when Slidell was on the way from Tallahassee to Houston.
Jim07D5
[snip]
It still is... Or at least, our Mall is.
Looking at Google Earth, I guess it is. Intersection of I-10 and state
hwy 433?
I was through there before I-10 went in. Sleepy little town.
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gene P." |
|
| Title: Re: Earth: The Privileged Planet |
04 Aug 2005 07:51:11 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Jim07D5 wrote:
"Gene P." <alcore@uurth.com> said:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Jim07D5 wrote:
[snip]
I remember when Slidell was on the way from Tallahassee to Houston.
Jim07D5
[snip]
It still is... Or at least, our Mall is.
Looking at Google Earth, I guess it is. Intersection of I-10 and state
hwy 433?
I was through there before I-10 went in. Sleepy little town.
Jim07D5
Yes, though I would have described Slidell as being everything on I-10
betweeen the intersection with I-12/I-59 and Lake Ponchartrain.
The preferred Coast-to-Coast driving route now bypasses New Orleans
entirely and exits I-10 onto I-12 at Slidell (and eventually rejoins I-10
where I-12 ends in Baton Rouge).
The Slidell Mall is at the second exit on I-12.
We're not so sleepy and not so little anymore.
Gene P.
Slidell LA
--
Alcore Nilth - The Mad Alchemist of Gevbeck
alcore@uurth.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth: The Privileged Planet |
04 Aug 2005 10:38:41 AM |
|
|
"Gene P." <alcore@uurth.com> said:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Jim07D5 wrote:
"Gene P." <alcore@uurth.com> said:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Jim07D5 wrote:
[snip]
I remember when Slidell was on the way from Tallahassee to Houston.
Jim07D5
[snip]
It still is... Or at least, our Mall is.
Looking at Google Earth, I guess it is. Intersection of I-10 and state
hwy 433?
I was through there before I-10 went in. Sleepy little town.
Jim07D5
Yes, though I would have described Slidell as being everything on I-10
betweeen the intersection with I-12/I-59 and Lake Ponchartrain.
The preferred Coast-to-Coast driving route now bypasses New Orleans
entirely and exits I-10 onto I-12 at Slidell (and eventually rejoins I-10
where I-12 ends in Baton Rouge).
The Slidell Mall is at the second exit on I-12.
We're not so sleepy and not so little anymore.
Slidell looks to be a livelier place -- all that housing down to the
lake.
Cheers,
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Aaron Denney" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth: The Privileged Planet |
03 Aug 2005 04:45:38 PM |
|
|
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.arts.sf.science.]
On 2005-08-03, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
God is incapable of lying.
I thought God could do anything. Says so right on the label.
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth: The Privileged Planet |
03 Aug 2005 03:44:50 PM |
|
|
"Gene P." <alcore@uurth.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0508031448140.7807-100000@uurth.com...
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Denis Loubet wrote:
[snip]
I don't have to deny it, it's up to you to prove it. By saying the
universe
is fine tuned, you are saying the odds of the universe being the way it is
are unlikely. That means you claim to know the odds of the universe being
the way it is. I can only wonder how you arrived at those odds. How many
other universes did you examine to determine that this one is unusual?
[snip]
The whole debate is silly.
You won't have fish on a planet with no water...
You won't have *us* (humans) in a Universe that isn't suited to us.
I deny that the universe is any more favorable than necessary... In fact,
God seems to have gone out of his way to make it rather difficult to
travel to anyplace else that might support our species. (Relativity and
cosmic distances are *so* unfair.)
Indeed. It seems we evolved DESPITE the universes obvious penchant for
vacuum and hard radiation.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth: The Privileged Planet |
03 Aug 2005 01:17:28 PM |
|
|
said:
The Privileged Planet: A review of a review
<...>
In
their book Gonzalez and Richards start with the empirical (and
undisputed) fact that, at least insofar as mainstream cosmology,
astrophysics, and nuclear chemistry are concerned, we exist in a
fine-tuned universe.
The fine-tuning argument will only be put forth where and when the
conditions of nature allow. We can agree on this.
Imagine the vast number of universes in which this argument is not put
forth, because their fine tuning isn't all that fine.
If you can't do that, imagine the vast number of solar systems in this
universe which this argument is not put forth, because their fine
tuning isn't all that fine.
If you can't do that, imagine the vast amount of time that this
argument was not put forth in our solar system, and will someday not
be put forth any more, because its fine tuning isn't all that fine.
And finally, if you can't do that, imagine the vast amount of time
that *you* won't put forth this argument, because *your* fine tuning
isn't all that fine.
OTOH, it is exceedingly improbable that a "fine-tuning" argument will
FAIL to be put forth, in a any place where it *can* be put forth. In
fact, there is no limit to the possible variety of these places. Some
other entity would be there, imagining its world to be finely tuned.
It's what happens whenever the conditions are coincidentally right for
it. Just as when the people got off that Airbus 340 in Canada. It's a
miracle! It had to be!
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth: The Privileged Planet |
03 Aug 2005 02:01:30 PM |
|
|
and who fine tuned the tuner?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth: The Privileged Planet |
04 Aug 2005 11:17:05 AM |
|
|
In episode <b352f11rckcf9av49r6efj2kmopb0oceaf@4ax.com>, Mani Deli burst
into the room and exclaimed:
and who fine tuned the tuner?
And what's wrong with the tuner anyway? I mean, have you *seen that
quantum whackyness? Talk about a screwy way to run a universe...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth: The Privileged Planet |
04 Aug 2005 11:00:22 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 11:17:05 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In episode <b352f11rckcf9av49r6efj2kmopb0oceaf@4ax.com>, Mani Deli burst
into the room and exclaimed:
and who fine tuned the tuner?
And what's wrong with the tuner anyway?
The tuner who made him screwed up.
I mean, have you *seen that
quantum whackyness? Talk about a screwy way to run a universe...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
and more like Bible babble
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth: The Privileged Planet |
03 Aug 2005 02:20:55 PM |
|
|
Mani Deli <mani@sympatico.ca> said:
and who fine tuned the tuner?
LOL. If the tuner *is* fine tuned. No evidence that the Bible one is.
Had to bring in a flood, send a son to his death, etc. It there was a
lemon law for planets. we'd have a good case.
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth: The Privileged Planet |
03 Aug 2005 01:10:20 PM |
|
|
writes:
The NCSE is not broad, as its name would suggest, but narrow: keep any
discussion of Biological Intelligent Design outside the science
classroom.
Which of course, nicely mirrors the much-better-funded Discovery
Institute of Culture and Science, which does nothing but try to get
"Intelligent Design" into the classroom.
On the one hand, this is a profoundly significant religious question.
Has the Creator both prepared the earth for life and also prepared it
so that we could do science? The implication is that religion and
science should be friends, not enemies.
Religious and science should ignore one another. They have as
much in common as a squirrel and a sea lion.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/
"The apocalypse may be closer at hand than even John Derbyshire thinks:
what the hell is Elf Sternberg doing reading Derb's columns?"
-- Charles Murtaugh
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth: The Plagiarized Planet |
03 Aug 2005 12:07:31 PM |
|
|
wrote:
The Privileged Planet: A review of a review
[...]
Examine what he declares as odd: "the more unsuitable our universe is
for producing intelligent life, the more likely it is that our universe
was 'designed' to produce intelligent life by a 'designer' of
indeterminate nature."
The statement, far from odd, is self-evident. In fact, it is just
Sagan's argument in reverse. Sagan argued that the universe surely
produced billions of earths, and this is then taken as evidence that
there is no designer. One doubts that Jefferys finds that argument odd.
The Cosmological ID argument is just stating tha t Sagan and his
followers cannot have both ways. Granted, if earth-like planets are
common, then there is no evidence for a designer. Therefore if
earthlike planets are exceedingly rare, then it is fair game to suggest
that such evidence does supp ort design.
Not to beat a dead horse, but The Privileged Planet does not argue
fine-tuning per se.
Odd that you say:
"In their book Gonzalez and Richards start with the empirical (and
undisputed) fact that, at least insofar as mainstream cosmology,
astrophysics, and nuclear chemistry are concerned, we exist in a
fine-tuned universe."
So they make the claim, they just don't argue for it.
It argues than habitability also leads to
observability.
Jefferys continues his anti-intellectual rant with a common
anti-intellectual tactic: an accusation (reach in the bag, pull one
out) of a logical fallacy.
Right. Pointing out logical fallacy is anti-intellectual.
He claims that Gonzalez and Richards create
a false dichotomy. He doesn't bother with the inconvenience of
referencing where this error is committed;
Yes he does.
he just makes an
unsubstantiated assertion. I have read The Privileged Planet and I have
watched the video, as far as I recall design is presented as a
potential, even the best explanation, but never as the only possible
alternative to existing theories.
From the editorial review from Publishers Weekly:
"By assessing the elements that compose our planet,
they argue, we can tell that it was designed for multicellular
organic life. The presence of carbon, oxygen and water
in the right proportions makes it possible for organic
life to exist; and this combination of minerals and chemical
elements exists only on Earth. Moreover, they argue, we
can measure the ways that Earth became habitable. Thus,
tree rings, stomata on leaves, skeletons in deep ocean
sediments and pollen in lake sediments help us to measure
how life on Earth developed by design. In addition, the
authors contend, the universe itself is designed for discovery
("Mankind is unusually well-positioned to decipher the
cosmos. Were we merely lucky in this regard?" No, the
authors respond)..."
It seems that Jefferys is befuddled;
I dont think I'll invest any more time in this plagiarized
post of yours, sport.
[...]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth: The Privileged Planet |
03 Aug 2005 10:16:15 AM |
|
|
wrote:
The Privileged Planet: A review of a review
[...]
The NCSE is not broad, as its name would suggest, but narrow: keep any
discussion of Biological Intelligent Design outside the science
classroom.
Good idea. It's not science.
[...]
If look at the NCSE's about page, you will find something like a
mission statement (if there is an actual Mission Statement page, I
couldn't find it.) There you would be excused for concluding, if the
NCSE were aptly named, that the only science known to man is evolution.
There is no mention of physics or chemistry.
So the NCSE is an organization which, in spite of its name, is devoted
to just one issue. It is a Potemkin "Center for Science Education."
I find it odd, then, that they even posted a review of The Privileged
Planet, which says nothing at all of substance regarding evolution.
Hahahahaha! Maybe you find it odd because you have just shot
yourself in the foot. Obviously the NCSE isn't an organization
devoted to just one issue. Duh.
In
their book Gonzalez and Richards start with the empirical (and
undisputed) fact that, at least insofar as mainstream cosmology,
astrophysics, and nuclear chemistry are concerned, we exist in a
fine-tuned universe.
You mean there is some other kind of universe we could
exist in? What kind would that be?
[...]
How is it that there is something rather than nothing?
Given that there is something, how is it that the something includes
galaxies, stars and planets?
Given that there are planets, how is it that one or more of them can
support complex life?
Given that a planet can support complex life, how is it that life
actually began?
Given that life actually began, how is it that it evolved into complex,
self-aware creatures?
Now if you debate with evolutionists, they demand that the argument
stays on point 5.
LOL! Oh dear, how would you know this? You haven't debated
anyone on evolution or probably any other subject. You are
mr. hit and run.
If you try to move it back one step to point 4,
abiogenesis, they will cry foul. That's not evolution's problem, they
will say, our domain strictly begins after the onset of life, and
however it happened is not relevant and fine with us (although we won't
allow it was by divine fiat.)
Again, you don't know what you are talking about.
I guess that goes with the territory, huh?
Fair enough.
Yes, lying is "fair enough" for you.
By why then do they care about The Privileged Planet,
which is operating in the domain of points 2-3?
First you lie and say that NCSE is strictly interested in
evolution and then you want to know what is wrong
when your lie is exposed.
Could it be that the NCSE's agenda goes be yond what it claims?
The NCSE says on their web site:
We are a nationally-recognized clearinghouse for
information and advice to keep evolution in
the science classroom and "scientific creationism"
out. NCSE is the only national organization to
specialize in this issue. We provide:
Reviews of current anti-evolution activity in the
United States and around the world
Background to the fundamentally creationist
and anti-evolution movement known as
"Intelligent Design"
----
How could you have missed this? Easy: you didn't.
Even as a troll you are incompetent.
That
they are threatened not just by criticism of evolution but by any
hypotheses that shines favorably on the notion of a Creator?
The logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem, and
a lame rendition of it at that. Like I said:
Incompetent.
I see no
other explanation.
LOL! Excuse me, WOT, but referencing your own ignorance
is not an argument.
Note that this radical notion is quite new: it is a
trivial exercise to find the most prominent scientists waxing
philosophical on the obvious connection between the beauty and elegance
of science and a divinely rational Creator.
It is not science, Einstein.
[...]
Gonzalez and Richards extend the fine-tuning argument in a fascinating
way: they argue a connection between habitability and
observability-not only is the earth extremely lucky in its ability to
support life,
Because if it wasn't we'd all have to wear space
suits? LOL!
it is also a privileged laboratory from which to do
science, especially cosmology and related fields.
That must be why it took so long to figure out
that our local galaxy wasn't all there was.
Just as an example:
Habitability: for a planet to be habitable, it needs to be in a low
(but not too low) stellar-density neighborhood so that (among other
things) the radiation is not too intense.
If it wasn't, you wouldn't be here lying about real scientists.
Observability: That is also the kind of environment that permits us to
see outside our own galaxy and back in time to the early universe.
On the one hand, this is a profoundly significant religious question.
Has the Creator
Could it be that you are threatened not just by criticism of
creationism but by any hypotheses that shines favorably
on evolution? Is that why you merely pretend you don't
need to support your claim of a creator?
both prepared the earth for life and also prepared it
so that we could do science? The implication is that religion and
science should be friends, not enemies.
They are. It is just that you are no friend to either.
However, the conjecture of The Privileged Plane t is not a religious one
but a scientific one.
Yeah? What is the scientific theory of ID?
In fact, in a subtle way, it is not at all
helpful to ID. Cosmological ID diehards (like myself) would like to
argue this: God made the universe and, as an added blessing, He made it
so we could study the universe too.
Don't flatter yourself. You demonstrate right here that
you can't argue this. You must assume it, and assume
that you DON'T NEED to argue it, as you do here.
The Privileged Planet argues, in
effect, that the blessing of observability is not independent.
Habitability and observability are highly and scientifically
correlated. My religious side would be happier if Gonzalez and Richards
are wrong, and habitability and observability counted as two miracles
instead of just one.
What miracle?
Sorry for more rabbit trails.
Rabbit droppings you mean.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Cherlin" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth: The Privileged Planet |
04 Aug 2005 01:21:50 PM |
|
|
wrote:
The Privileged Planet: A review of a review
I have seen many rants against ID (Intelligent Design)
Yes, and you are going to see more. Today, however, we have something
different to present.
Let us take as a hypothesis that the argument for Intelligent Design is
correct. That doesn't mean that we all believe it. It just means that we
will start from there and pursue the logical consequences.
ID takes the rather remarkable facts about our existence in the Universe,
and argues that these facts could not originate by accident, but presuppose
a Designer. (This is in contrast with what we know of physics, which allows
for the existence of vast multitudes of domains in which the laws of
physics, or at least certain physical constants of our domain, are
different. Then the fact that our domain supports intelligent life is just
an instance of the Anthropic Principle--If it didn't, we wouldn't be here
remarking on it, just like all the people who don't live in the other
domains that don't support life. ID also fails to take account of what we
don't know of physics, which is expected to be even more remarkable.)
Anyway, at the point where we are starting out, we have the remarkable facts
about the Universe, plus the even more remarkable conclusion about the
powers and abilities of the Designer and Manufacturer. Therefore, by the
same argument, the D&M must have had a Designer, and so on ad infinitum,
each level being more astounding than the one before, and the whole
construction beyond imagination.
And once we have gotten to infinity, we then need a Designer on an even
higher level. After that, it just gets worse, because there is nowhere that
we can stop. So no. We are better served with a principle of Christian
theology here, namely Ockham's (Latin: Occam) Razor, not to multiply
entities beyond necessity. Because, however much certain people might
despise evolution, cosmology, stem-cell research, or any other aspect of
science and technology, I don't think Christian theology can be served by
the creation of an infinity of Gods (of which our immediate Creator would
be the very least). Especially not an infinity larger than all other
infinities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Orbital" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth: The Privileged Planet |
06 Aug 2005 06:58:14 AM |
|
|
I found this site gives quite a good account of anti-evolution
arguement. Although many ideas seem to be based on a lack of
understanding, misinterprataion and 'no evidence is evidence'
arguements.
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/
This site is one you probalbly already know.
http://www.talkorigins.org/
It's good at debunking most creationist ideas.
Orbital.
P.S. You would be right in thinking I'm a little biased towards
evolution.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher P. Winter" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth: The Privileged Planet |
12 Aug 2005 05:50:33 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 18:21:50 GMT, Edward Cherlin <edward.cherlin@etssg.com>
wrote:
wordsoftruth114@email.com wrote:
The Privileged Planet: A review of a review
I have seen many rants against ID (Intelligent Design)
Yes, and you are going to see more. Today, however, we have something
different to present.
Let us take as a hypothesis that the argument for Intelligent Design is
correct. That doesn't mean that we all believe it. It just means that we
will start from there and pursue the logical consequences.
ID takes the rather remarkable facts about our existence in the Universe,
and argues that these facts could not originate by accident, but presuppose
a Designer. (This is in contrast with what we know of physics, which allows
for the existence of vast multitudes of domains in which the laws of
physics, or at least certain physical constants of our domain, are
different. Then the fact that our domain supports intelligent life is just
an instance of the Anthropic Principle--If it didn't, we wouldn't be here
remarking on it, just like all the people who don't live in the other
domains that don't support life. ID also fails to take account of what we
don't know of physics, which is expected to be even more remarkable.)
Anyway, at the point where we are starting out, we have the remarkable facts
about the Universe, plus the even more remarkable conclusion about the
powers and abilities of the Designer and Manufacturer. Therefore, by the
same argument, the D&M must have had a Designer, and so on ad infinitum,
each level being more astounding than the one before, and the whole
construction beyond imagination.
And once we have gotten to infinity, we then need a Designer on an even
higher level. After that, it just gets worse, because there is nowhere that
we can stop. So no. We are better served with a principle of Christian
theology here, namely Ockham's (Latin: Occam) Razor, not to multiply
entities beyond necessity. Because, however much certain people might
despise evolution, cosmology, stem-cell research, or any other aspect of
science and technology, I don't think Christian theology can be served by
the creation of an infinity of Gods (of which our immediate Creator would
be the very least). Especially not an infinity larger than all other
infinities.
Well done, sir.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Erik Max Francis" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth: The Privileged Planet |
03 Aug 2005 03:38:43 PM |
|
|
wrote:
The Privileged Planet: A review of a review
Please stop crossposting this garbage to rec.arts.sf.science. Unless,
of course, you _meant_ to suggest that Intelligent Design is science
fiction ... ?
--
Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
You'll be screaming it later / Scream my name
-- Lamya
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth: The Privileged Planet |
04 Aug 2005 11:16:24 AM |
|
|
In episode <Lq2dnbtBE43ItmzfRVn-hw@speakeasy.net>, Erik Max Francis burst
into the room and exclaimed:
wordsoftruth114@email.com wrote:
The Privileged Planet: A review of a review
Please stop crossposting this garbage to rec.arts.sf.science. Unless, of
course, you _meant_ to suggest that Intelligent Design is science fiction
... ?
Inadvertent honesty on the part of the troll that was...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Odysseus" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth: The Privileged Planet |
06 Aug 2005 02:59:21 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:
In episode <Lq2dnbtBE43ItmzfRVn-hw@speakeasy.net>, Erik Max Francis burst
into the room and exclaimed:
wordsoftruth114@email.com wrote:
The Privileged Planet: A review of a review
Please stop crossposting this garbage to rec.arts.sf.science. Unless, of
course, you _meant_ to suggest that Intelligent Design is science fiction
... ?
Inadvertent honesty on the part of the troll that was...
But is it art?
--
Odysseus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Hertzlinger" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth: The Privileged Planet |
06 Aug 2005 09:48:29 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 07:59:21 GMT, Odysseus
<odysseus1479-at@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:
In episode <Lq2dnbtBE43ItmzfRVn-hw@speakeasy.net>, Erik Max Francis burst
into the room and exclaimed:
wordsoftruth114@email.com wrote:
The Privileged Planet: A review of a review
Please stop crossposting this garbage to rec.arts.sf.science. Unless, of
course, you _meant_ to suggest that Intelligent Design is science fiction
... ?
Inadvertent honesty on the part of the troll that was...
But is it art?
Of course, it's art.
According to Olaf Stapledon, this universe is the artwork marking the
beginning of the Star Maker's mature period.
--
http://hertzlinger.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth: The Privileged Planet |
04 Aug 2005 11:15:41 AM |
|
|
In episode <1123074305.151256.276960@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
wordsoftruth114 burst into the room and exclaimed:
Earth: The Privileged Planet
You don't know that.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
